Wise v. Wash. Cnty.
| Decision Date | 17 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 10-1677 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Parties | DAVID D. WISE, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY; and CAPTAIN MICHAEL KING, individually and in his capacity as a Washington County Corrections Officer, Defendants. |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel Lawrence H. Fisher, Esq. ("Fisher"). As the nature of the Motion demands a review of the entire record, the Court first sets forth a detailed overview of the proceedings. See, e.g., Baker Indus., Inc. v. Cerberus Ltd., 764 F.2d 204, 209 (3d Cir. 1985) ().
This civil rights action was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff David Wise ("Wise" or "Plaintiff") against Washington County, Captain Michael King ("King"), and various Washington County Correctional Facility ("WCCF") correctional officers and nurses, alleging that they violated his Eighth Amendment right of protection from cruel and unusual punishment and his Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights. (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff also set forthassault and battery claims against certain of the officers and nurses. (Id.). The parties agreed that Wise's seizure disorder, which he has had since he was approximately five years old, constituted a serious medical need. (Docket No. 103 at 14); (Docket No. 308-1 at 8-10, 15).
Wise did not take his medication as prescribed on September 13, 2006. (Docket No. 228 at 3). Consequently, he had a seizure while driving and caused an accident killing a passenger in another car. (Id.); Commonwealth v. Wise, CP-63-CR-0001211-2009 (Ct. Comm. Pl. Wash. Cnty.).1 He was convicted of vehicular manslaughter and subsequently sentenced to a term of incarceration beginning on May 1, 2010. (Docket No. 228 at 3). During processing two days later, WCCF completed a Treatment Intake Screen for Wise, at which time he informed WCCF personnel of his seizure disorder. (Docket No. 103 at 2).
With this backdrop, Wise alleged that he received inadequate medical care for three seizures he suffered at WCCF, with the first occurring on May 15, 2010. (Docket No. 29, passim); (Docket No. 103 at 2). He maintained that he had a second seizure on May 26th; however, Defendants disputed same. (Docket No. 103 at 4). He then had a second or third seizure on July 16, 2010. (Id. at 6-7). Theodore Melencheck ("Melencheck") and Robert Fields ("Fields"), also WCCF inmates, reportedly heard and saw the events surrounding this seizure. (Id. at 6-9).
Wise also alleged that he was assaulted and battered by WCCF personnel. (Docket No. 29 at 14-15). Additionally, he made complaints that the correctional officers and nurses taunted and mocked him. (Id. at 12); (Docket No. 81-4 at 105:10-106:5).
On release, Wise sought legal representation. Akman & Associates, who had previously represented him in Social Security and criminal matters, referred him to Fisher, who at that timewas an employee of Cohen & Willwerth, P.C.2 (Docket No. 273 at ¶¶ 13, 24); (Docket No. 303 at ¶ 5). Fisher had worked for Akman & Associates from 1996 through 2006. (Docket No. 273 at ¶ 13). He went into solo practice in 2013 during the pendency of this case.3 (Id. at ¶ 24).
Upon receiving the referral and medical records from Akman & Associates, Fisher reviewed the file and evaluated the claim. (Docket No. 273 at ¶ 13). He then hired a private investigator4 to seek out additional information, but this effort was "to no avail." (Id. at ¶ 14). Akman & Associates also provided Fisher with their "Negligence Questionnaire"5 regarding, inter alia, Wise's medical treatment. (Id. at ¶ 15). Fisher first met with Wise on November 18, 2010 and during this meeting, they reviewed said Questionnaire. (Docket No. 303 at ¶ 2). Fisher then prepared the Complaint. (Docket No. 273 at ¶ 16). Wise verified it, and it was filed onDecember 15, 2010. (Id. at ¶ 17); (Docket No. 1). He sought exemplary and punitive damages against all Defendants at Counts 1 and 2. (Docket No. 1).
Service was made on King and Washington County on December 27, 2010, and on Kelley and Lehr on January 6, 2011. (Docket Nos. 2-5). After being granted a month-long extension, (CM/ECF, Text Order, Mar. 8, 2011), Defendants' counsel, Edmond R. Joyal, ("Joyal"), filed their Answer on April 7, 2011, (Docket No. 7). The Answer claimed, among other defenses, that punitive damages were not recoverable against the individual Defendants in their official capacities and Washington County and the Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Id.). Defendants also opted to have this case randomly assigned to a district judge. (Docket No. 9). The matter was then randomly assigned to this Court, with then Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa P. Lenihan referred. (CM/ECF, Text Order, Apr. 14, 2011).
Consistent with the Federal and Local Rules,6 Judge Lenihan entered an initial Case Management Order and, given the Court's mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") program, referred the parties to an Early Neutral Evaluation ("ENE")7 before the Honorable Kenneth Benson.8 (Docket Nos. 14, 16). Thereafter, the parties engaged in a series of discovery motions. (Docket Nos. 17, 21, 23).
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed June 30, 2011, set forth Eighth Amendment and Equal Protection claims against Washington County, correctional officers: King, Adam Lehr ("Lehr"), and Kelley, and nurses: Victoria Goroncy ("Goroncy"), Autumn Loughman ("Loughman"), Luanne Rossi ("Rossi"), and Jill Nixon ("Nixon") at Counts 1 and 2. (DocketNo. 29). At Counts 3 and 4, he pled assault and battery claims against King, Kelley, and Rossi. (Id.). The punitive damages claim remained against all Defendants at Counts 1 and 2. (Id.). Defendants again raised various defenses in their Answer, including that the Defendants in their official capacities and Washington County, as a municipal defendant, were not subject to punitive damages and were entitled to qualified immunity. (Docket No. 31).
On July 12, 2011, the parties engaged in ENE before Judge Benson. The case did not resolve, and it was returned to Judge Lenihan for further proceedings. (Docket No. 30).
Additional discovery motions followed.9 (Docket Nos. 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 41, 48, 49, 50, 57, 60, 69, 75). In all, there were two motions to extend the time to complete discovery. (Docket Nos. 32, 38). The first was joint, and the second was filed by Fisher. (Docket Nos. 32, 38).
Throughout discovery, Judge Lenihan repeatedly reminded counsel of the Local Rules' meet and conferral requirement and the Rules of Professional Conduct.10 (CM/ECF Text Order June 9, 2011); (Docket No. 55); (CM/ECF Text Order, Feb. 17, 2012) ( ).
Akin to discovery, there were numerous requests for extensions of time during this stage of the litigation. There were some joint motions, but Joyal filed the majority of these requests. (See Docket Nos. 6, 11, 78, 88, 104, 115, 146).
Defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for conspiracy and any Equal Protection violation. (Docket No. 65). Additionally, they argued that the Amended Complaint failed to state any claim against the individual Defendants in their official capacities. (Id.). During Wise's deposition the next day, Fisher agreed to stipulate that the Equal Protection claim should be dismissed. (Docket No. 81-4 at 1); (Docket No. 81-5 at 181:17-21). The claim was formally conceded two weeks later vis-à-vis the Proposed Order attached to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Docket No. 67-1). In the proposed Order and brief, Plaintiff also agreed that punitive damages were not recoverable against the County. (Docket Nos. 67-1, 68 at 3-4). Finally, he asserted that he did not plead a conspiracy claim, despite the following language that appeared twice in his Amended Complaint: "[t]hese Defendants, individually, and in a conspiracy with each other, violated Wise's rights. . . ." (Docket No. 29 at ¶¶ 20, 42); (Docket No. 68 at 7).
After considering the parties' briefs, (Docket Nos. 64, 68), Judge Lenihan issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), (Docket No. 74), which was adopted as the Opinion of this Court, (Docket No. 77). The Motion was granted as it related to any alleged conspiracy claim, Equal Protection Claim and claim for punitive damages against Washington County and the individual Defendants in their official capacities. (Id.). It was denied as to the claim for punitive damages against the individual Defendants in their personal capacities. (Id.).
Subsequently, Defendants moved for summary judgment, which was opposed. (DocketNos. 80, 85). Judge Lenihan ultimately issued an R&R, which was also adopted as the Opinion of this Court. (Docket Nos. 103, 108). All claims against Nixon, Loughman, and Lehr and the assault claim against Kelley were dismissed. (Docket No. 108). The Motion was denied in all other respects. (Id.).
Judge Lenihan next convened a final Status Conference. (Docket No. 109). Therein, she raised the possibility of settlement negotiations, but Defendants were not willing to make an offer. (Id.). The case was then referred to this Court for trial. (Docket No. 110). A Pretrial Order was entered, setting jury selection and trial for July 10, 2013. (Docket No. 111).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial